Jim Webb Live! (7-8 PM EST)

I'm posting an interview I conducted this afternoon with Jim Webb, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia.  Mr. Webb will be available for the next hour to participate in the discussion.  Thanks.

P.S.  I'm posting it under my account because Webb's account is less than a week old so he can't post diaries from it.

Webb for Senate

Contribute Online

1)  You served in the Reagan Administration and were a Republican for many years.   What are the main reasons you decided to switch to the Democratic Party?

I've never run for office.  That tends to clarify the mind.  I identified myself most strongly with the Democratic Party until the end of the Vietnam War, then I went with the Republican Party on issues of national security.  I was not affiliated in any way with either of the Bush Administrations.  Events following 9/11, plus a lot of thought while I was writing Born Fighting, led me to decide that I best identify with the Democratic Party.  That being said, I have friends in both parties, and if I am elected I hope we can restore a measure of civility in the Congress that is now sorely lacking.

2) Which wing, if any, of the Democratic Party do you feel most comfortable with?   Would you describe yourself as a liberal, moderate, conservative, populist, or progressive Democrat?   Or something else entirely?

I would describe myself as conservative on national defense, populist on economic issues, and a social moderate.

3) Why did you decide to run for U.S. Senate from Virginia?   Is your run fueled by any degree of anger towards the Bush Administration and "culture of corruption" Republican Congress?

People who are looking for anger from me will be disappointed.  I was angry for many years following Vietnam because by virtue of my writings and government jobs I had inherited the responsibility of defending the wrongs done to those who had served in that war.  But I lost that anger after 9/11.  There are too many important issues to focus on, here in the present.  

To be sure, this Administration has been woefully inept in many areas, and the political culture in Washington has become corrupted due to a Congress that has lost its way.  I will focus on those areas, but more as leadership challenges than as the result of personal anger.

4) What differentiates you, if anything, from other politicians in America today?

The major difference between me and most of them is that I am not a career politician and have never desired to be one.  I have strong experience as a committee counsel in the Congress and as a Defense Department leader.  But I have been extremely fortunate to be able to support myself and my family through a writing career that has given me independence and also insights that I would never have obtained if I had been running for office continuously.  Writing also allows one a measure of introspection that is rarely available in government.

5) What are your main criticisms of George Allen, who you would be running against if you win the Democratic nomination?   What is your main argument for replacing George Allen, and why do you believe you have the best chance to defeat him this year?

If you like George W. Bush then you should love George Allen, who has supported this president 96 percent of the time

•  He did a great job on Hardball

  but Tweety was really annoying.

  by Drdemocrat on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:00:17 PM PDT

  •  Thanks

    Too short a time, unfortunately.

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:02:30 PM PDT

  •  hardball

    Was that today? I'll try to catch the replay tonight if yes.

    Thank you.

    by OLinda on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:23:04 PM PDT

    •  yeah..

      It was the last 10 minutes of tonight's Hardball.  

      by Corey D Hernandez on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:26:23 PM PDT

•  I have a bunch of prepared questions

  I'll ask them one at a time and we'll work from there.

  First,

  Do you believe the federal government is an agent of good or an intrusive force? As it relates to domestic policy? As it relates to foreign policy?

  by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:01:48 PM PDT

  •  Government as an intrusive force or good?

    The government can be either.  I believe strongly that on social issues the government's power should end at my front door, absent a compelling reason that involves the health or safety of another person.  But I think we all know the good that government has been able to do when it comes to protecting the lives of people who need outside assistance, and in protecting our legitimate interests abroad.

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:05:17 PM PDT

    •  To elaborate

      Do you think the federal government should be actively involved in lessening the income gap?

      by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:08:36 PM PDT

      •  maybe it should be less involved in

        increasing that gap in the first place, by structuring the fiscal and monetary policy to benefit the economic elite, rather than providing a more neutral playing field.

        by colorless green ideas on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:46:03 PM PDT

•  Saw the Hardball interview...

  You mentioned this is much more than an anti-war candidacy.  It's about realigning our National defense policy.  Can you elaborate?

  by Corey D Hernandez on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:02:04 PM PDT

  •  Defense policy of the campaign

    We're running on four themes, and the first one is to re-orient our national defense to a more traditional set of policies that truly relate to defending our interests abroad.  I believe the Iraq War was a serious strategic error that has cost the nation a great deal in terms of blood, treasure and international respect.  At the same time I am a realist when it comes to the legitimate need to defend our interests.  These needs are sometimes strategic, and in rare instances (e.g., now, the need to root out international terrorism) related to direct combat.  We need to begin a careful withdrawal from Iraq.  The first step in doing so involves a clear signal to the region that we have no long-term interests in that country.

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:09:15 PM PDT

    •  What do you think about allies?

      BushCo has turned our view of "allies" v. "enemies" upsidedown - at least that is how I feel.  I watched Bush essentially threaten our traditionall allies, France and Germany, in the Canary Islands speech just prior to the Iraq invasion.

      Then these past weeks he claims that the United Arab Emirates is essentially the greatest ally we've ever had.

      What I find very troubling now and have always been troubled by with this administration is that our "key allies" in their eyes seem to be countries that are anything but democratic.   While our traditional allies that are democratic seem to be cast aside.  

      I think having a hit man "on your side" is probably a good thing in the short term, but is it a good thing in the long run?  Do you see what I am saying?  In any case, your comment about bringing us back to a more traditional set of policies made me want to ask.  I mean I'd like to keep the tradition of revering our democratic counter-parts around the world and keeping at arms length the dictators, monarchies, theocracies etc.

      Thanks for running.  I hope you win.

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:11:47 PM PDT

•  You were against the Iraq war,

  What is your solution to get the troops out, and how do you feel about the fact that Osama bin Laden is still free?

  by jmaps on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:05:03 PM PDT

•  Hi Jim!

  A few of us are meeting in Richmond tonight, watching you on television and typing on DailyKos.

  by JCWilmore on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:05:19 PM PDT

  •  Nice JC

    Where are you guys at?

    by Corey D Hernandez on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:09:41 PM PDT

    •  Shockoe Espresso & Roastery

      by JCWilmore on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:23:02 PM PDT

      •  Get the gunpowder tea

        Tis my favorite.

        by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:24:19 PM PDT

      •  I played a show there once

        in a band called the soft targets.

        we rocked.

        They have comfy chairs :)

        by faithfull on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 06:50:25 PM PDT

  •  Hi everyone!

    Hi everyone at the meet-up! Sorry I could not be there, I am under the weather!!!

    by Heart Of Blue on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:37:16 PM PDT

•  Mark Warner

  Mark Warner just gained Harris Miller 10k at a recent fundraiser. You're focusing on the grassroots with your 300k in 3 weeks movement. Will you also be holding the standard fundraiser, bringing out popular politicians to raise money or will you stay with the grassroots to fund your compaign?

  by GregBouchillon on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:06:16 PM PDT

  •  To be fair

    Mark Warner committed to that prior to Webb joining the race. Warner's people have been pretty clear that they aren't endorsing.

    by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:16:14 PM PDT

    •  It's less about

      Warner, and more about Miller using politicians to raise money instead of depending on grassroots and the average joe

      by GregBouchillon on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:18:11 PM PDT

      •  I really think you need both...

        just like the Clark and Dean Presidential campaigns. Both driven by a grassroots/netroots effort. Both with significant big money donors adding to the coffers to compete.

        It's not an either/or to me.

        by Angie Tran on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:20:24 PM PDT

        •  I agree but easier said than done

          He is going to need to raise 10-15 million dollars for this race particularly since he is not as well known.  He will need money particularly for television ads.  This WILL make the difference on whether he wins or loses.

          by Drdemocrat on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:28:24 PM PDT

          •  I think this is where the netroots can help...

            Kos' post today about early money. If we give Jim's campaign early money, it will help him attract the big money also. It's like, the netroots are the smart Angel investor, to use a venture capital analogy.

            by Angie Tran on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:31:59 PM PDT

  •  Fund-raising

    Virginia blogs have been critical of Mark Warner for giving a speech at one of Harris Miller's fundraisers.  Has the Webb campaign contacted Mark Warner to request his presence at a fundraiser or other event?

    by Adam Malle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:49:32 PM PDT

•  Healthcare

  I was wondering how you think we should go about ensuring that everyone who needs healthcare is able to receive it?

  This is such an important issue for Virginia as well as the entire country. It affects every Virginian and American.

  by Heart Of Blue on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:06:56 PM PDT

  •  Health Care

    I agree with you that this is a fundamental issue of concern.  I don't pretend to have an omnibus bill waiting to be dropped into the hopper, but I believe that everyone in this country should be entitled to some level of care, just as everyone in this country is entitled to an education.  This is obviously a very difficult issue, particularly in terms of rising costs.  But it would be one of my priorities.

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:37:32 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for your honesty

      Thank you Mr. Webb for your honesty! I know that this is an issue that worries many families who can not afford healthcare for either themselves or their children. It can put a huge financial and emotional strain on a family.

      Thanks again!

      by Heart Of Blue on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:39:33 PM PDT

•  Mr. Webb, why didn't you volunteer in 2005

  At least, why didn't you put a Tim Kaine sign in your yard?

  by Alice Marshall on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:06:58 PM PDT

•  which current senator

  would you most like to have dinner with and why

  by Bob Brigham on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:09:01 PM PDT

  •  Senator for dinner

    Well, right now I'd love to have dinner with Harry Reid, and ask him to endorse me.  That would make my life a lot simpler...

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:50:49 PM PDT

    •  perhaps if you attend YearlyKos

      That could be arranged. The seating part, I mean. You'll have to do the asking yourself.

      by emmasnacker on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:42:29 AM PDT

•  Mr. Webb, would you have supported Feingold?

  Mr. Webb, if you were in the Senate right now, would you have signed onto Feingolds censure resolution? If not, why not?

  by mike20169 on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:09:16 PM PDT

  •  Censure Issue

    I have a great respect for Senator Feingold.  I view him as one of the few people in the Senate who are focusing on issues that are debilitating to the process of government (campaign finance, e.g.).  I'm not sure I would support a censure over the NSA surveillance issue, but I do believe that people need to keep connecting the dots on the widespread abuse of power in this Presidency.  Too many people in the Congress want to "kiss that issue" as it goes by.  I do not understand what it is that the Administration wishes to conceal in the NSA issue, because it was a simple matter for them to file the appropriate notice at the time.  

    This issue dovetails with others, to the point that it demonstrates a pattern.  For instance, the Ports issue is every bit as much about the hubris of the Administration, and its refusal to coordinate such important decisions, as it is about the contracts themselves.

    Issues such as these are the main reason that one of the themes of our campaign is the need for the Congress to reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government.  And I believe Senator Feingold might be a strong ally in that respect.

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:16:40 PM PDT

    •  I appreciate you answer, but...

      ...hopefully during the coming campaign you will decide that Feingold's resolution was in fact appropriate, and needed. Good luck in your campaign and thanks for fighting the good fight.

      by mike20169 on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:23:05 PM PDT

      •  Censure

        I'm not saying that I would not support a censure.  This is a new proposal and one of my reservations would be that it is aimed at only one element of Presidential abuse.  However, we all know how such processes can gum up the Congress (the rather ridiculous impeachment proceedings against Pres Clinton come to mind).  My strong feeling is that we need to keep talking about these abuses, and bring people into the Congress who will stand up to them.  Wouldn't it be nice to have a Congress that was willing to subpoena the right officials, and that demanded to see what the administration was really doing, and who, exactly, was being listened to during those NSA sessions?  

        by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:41:46 PM PDT

        •  Censure

          Thank you for clarifying. One of the problems seems to be stonewalling on the part of the executive branch. Even Senator Specter has stated that they are getting little to no cooperation from the President.
          It also doesn't help that the majority of the GOP is running interference by planning to change the law and making it retroactive.

          by cwaltz on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:49:15 PM PDT

    •  uh oh n/t

      by OLinda on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:26:01 PM PDT

•  Censure

  Do you believe that censuring the President at this point and time is appropriate? Why or Why not?

  I'm going to add my disclaimer here: I believe that there are times and places for civility and there is a time and place to draw a line in the sand for what you believe.

  by cwaltz on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:10:46 PM PDT

•  What do you consider to be

  the successes of the Reagan Adminstration, and its failures?

  by AnthonySF on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:11:22 PM PDT

  •  Anthony, some HACKETT info

    Hackett is going to be on the Daily Show tonight.  You should Tivo it.

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:18:01 PM PDT

•  Sec. Webb

  What committees would you be interested in serving on?

  by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:11:34 PM PDT

  •  Committees

    I would want to serve on either the Armed Services or the Foreign Affairs Committee, and in addition the Health, Education, Labor and Pension committee.

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:21:06 PM PDT

    •  Why?

      What draws you to the Health, Ed., Labor, and Pension committee? Do you have specific ideas/policy proposals you would like to implement? Just curious.

      by Angie Tran on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:24:42 PM PDT

      •  Committees

        A lot of people think that this campaign will be based purely (or principally) on the Iraq War.  I was an early opponent of invading Iraq and along with others such as General Tony Zinni predicted the inevitable results of an occupation there.  But the reasons that finally compelled me to run for the Senate came from the worry that I have about a growing unfairness in our society.  

        The country is breaking into three different groups, and is becoming defined by class far more than at any time in my memory.  The people at the top have never had it so good.  You only have to look at the ratios of corporate executive compensation compared to the average factory worker to see this.  

        The middle class is stagnating.  Jobs are being sent overseas, public education is spotty.  Health care is being denied to many people who actually do have jobs -- it's not a "welfare" problem.

        And we are in danger of developing a permanent underclass, without true hope of advancement.  

        Yesterday a woman commented to me after I said this that the US is starting to look like Brazil, from where she had immigrated.  I told her we are starting to look a bit like Manila -- walled communities, different schools for the elites, and people living out of boxes.

        Being able to serve on the HELP Committee would allow me to delve deeply into this problem.

        by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:49:02 PM PDT

        •  Sec. Webb

          That is probably the best answer you could've given me.

          by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:50:35 PM PDT

        •  Thank you! n/t

          by Angie Tran on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:55:32 PM PDT

        •  Will you repeat this at your inauguration?

          I can hardly imagine any of our incumbent Senators saying what you just said so clearly.

          by colorless green ideas on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:57:06 PM PDT

        •  Fairness--Restoring the American Dream

          Thank you for focusing on restoring fairness in the U.S.

          Having a fair chance in this country has been one of its major attractions to many immigrants.

          I am glad that there is a candidate with the courage to talk about this issue and defend the American Dream.

          Thanks again for running.

          by Hugo Estrada on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:03:32 PM PDT

•  Mike

  Looks like we have the same question. :)

  by cwaltz on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:12:44 PM PDT

•  Supreme Court

  What criteria would you apply in deciding whether to support a President's nominee to the Court:

  • A clearly qualified judge, legal scholar, or public figure should be approved regardless of "judicial philosophy"
  • Philosophical balance on the Court should be maintained: I would vote against an otherwise qualified nominee if I thought s/he would tip the balance too far in any direction
  • Balance of life experience should be maintained and established: I would vote against filling a slot with the ninth white male
  • Other

  I know this isn't really a multiple choice question ;)

  Thank you for joining us this evening.

  by Elwood Dowd on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:13:30 PM PDT

•  The Second Amendment

  I've been a big fan for a while now.  What's your opinion on Second Amendment Rights?  Do you think that we need more gun laws, less gun laws, or should they stay where they are?

  by dandalftheblue on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:16:16 PM PDT

•  A Few Questions

  I'm a libertarian Democrat associated with the Democratic Freedom Caucus and I have a few questions that some concern those of us in the party with a more libertarian-leaning.

  How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?

  I'm concerned about the growth of the national debt under President Bush and the transition from a surplus to a deficit.  What do you believe needs to be done to return us to balanced budgets?

  How do you feel about the Patriot Act?

  Under President Bush our military has begun to redeploy troops out of Germany and other bases around the world.  How do you feel about this?

  You are perhaps famous (or infamous) for resigning as Secretary of the Navy to protest cuts.  Many voters are today concerned about wasteful pork projects influencing the decisions concerning our military spending.  Do you believe that our current level of military spending reflects our national security interests?

  How would you have voted on CAFTA and why.

  Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.

  by LoganFerree on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:16:24 PM PDT

  •  A Few Answers

    1.  Second Amendment.  I support the Second Amendment, for many of the same reasons that I am more "liberal" on social issues.  I believe the power of the government should stop at my front door, and that I should have the ability to protect myself and my family.

    2.  Relocation of troops.  Much of this relocation out of Europe needed to take place.  What I worry about is the smaller set of bases going into other countries, and (most importantly) the logic of this Administration that we should be a permanent occupying power in the Middle East.

    3.  CAFTA.  Free trade isn't fair trade.  We have hurt ourselves for several years through these agreements, and the evidence is showing that.

    4.  Patriot Act.  That's a tough one.  I'm not sure we ever needed a Department of Homeland Security.  I have great worries about the protection of individual privacy and the potential of governmental officials to abuse this right for reasons not related to our security.  There are many historical examples to buttress the notion that this worry is legitimate.  At the same time, there seemed to be a preponderance of support for the Patriot Act renewal, and these questions seemed to be knocked down during the debates on renewing the legislation.  I have a policy of trying to withold a firm opinion until I've been able to learn all the relevant facts.  I would be looking very hard at this if I were in the Senate.

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:28:56 PM PDT

    •  Southwest Virginia

      Southwest Virginia will vote strongly for James Webb - they just don't know it yet.  

      I hope you will get to come down this way soon.

      Brian Patton

      by Brian Patton on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:38:43 PM PDT

•  your opponent has been a supporter of outsourcing

  jobs. What is your suggestion for keeping jobs in the US and how do you recommend we train our workforce?

  by BlueInVA on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:19:01 PM PDT

  •  Outsourcing

    Again, free trade is not fair trade.  The internationalization of our economy, and the emphasis on corporate "bottom lines" when it comes to executive compensation, have created an incentive for our corporations to move jobs again and again to the cheapest labor pools.  

    We need to find a way to calculate the difference in economic systems, so that we can truly make a fair trade policy.  For instance, how can the Chinese produce a 10 thousand dollar car?  The president's reaction to this was that our workers had to become more efficient.  But the price of our cars include health care, retirement, etc., which in China are covered by the state, and the Chinese currency is artificially low to help other economic interest here (financing the national debt), etc. etc., how can we fairly compete?

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:01:05 PM PDT

•  A specialized question

  That I think you might have an interesting opinion on.

  Do you think that DOD should have budgetary control over intelligence, or that they should operate independently, or possibly under the DHS umbrella (although, given the horror of DHS.....)? I ask because I wonder if placing them under DOD contributes to the group think that failed so catastrophically in the lead up to the Iraq War.

  by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:20:23 PM PDT

•  Mr. Webb

  I think you have a fantastic chance of beating George Allen for many reasons including that Allen has been spending so much time lining up for running for President that he is not addressing his constituents' concerns including Iraq.  You should hammer him on this.

  by Drdemocrat on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:21:52 PM PDT

  •  Allen on Iraq

    George Allen has aligned himself almost completely with George W. Bush on a wide array of issues.  He has a 96 percent rate of support for W.  I noticed this past weekend that he started moving away from this fact.  His position on Iraq is a mirror of the President's.  If he holds those views, I respect them.  But I don't believe they represent the views of most Virginians, and I haven't seen him take the lead in solving the problem.

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:32:20 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for talking about Iraq

      Too many Democratic candidates are running from this issue.  It is great that we have veterans running for office.  They are NOT afraid.

      by Drdemocrat on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:36:58 PM PDT

•  You say you are 'moderate' on social issues.

  That often translates into opposing equal rights for gays, especially the right to marry.

  Would that be a fair description of your position ?

  by tiponeill on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:22:39 PM PDT

  •  Nope

    Not to speak for James Webb, but since he's not here to answer anymore, I'll point out that he has said that he supports civil unions (providing equal rights for gays), while reserving the term "marriage" for the church to deal with.  So he's basically with Howard Dean and most other Democrats on that issue.

    by MattBellamy on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:24:23 PM PDT

    •  He stated at an event I was at

      that he supports "don't ask, don't tell" because of the close living environment of the military or something like that.  He also stated he supports civil unions.

      by furryjester on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 06:36:44 PM PDT

•  On your website

  you state the following as one of your four major themes for running:

  Reinstituting notions of true fairness in American society, including issues of race, class, and economic advantage.

  This is a very broad statement, and I was hoping you could clarify it, as it's the only one of your four themes relating directly to domestic policy.

  Specifically, how does your focus on this theme translate into campaign and policy positions on issues such as affirmative action, tax policy, national healthcare, and government spending?

  Thanks for stopping by and answering some questions. I'm very excited to learn more about your campaign.

  by thirdparty on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:23:20 PM PDT

•  Budget

  Right now our country has a huge financial crisis. Our President has insisted on tax cuts while simultaneously spending billions overseas to rebuild other countries. We are about to hit another budget ceiling. In the interim we are using stuff like any surplus from social security and government workers pension funds for a few extra billion. What is your opinion on this? What do you feel would be a solution for our current situation?

  by cwaltz on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:30:11 PM PDT

•  What's your position on the federal deficit?

  I ask because someone commented that they were worried you might be a supply-sider due to your having been in the Reagan administration in my diary about today's vote against reimplementing PAYGO. I was going to tell them that I figured that since today's deficit spending is being financed by China, deficit spending is now a national security issue so that whatever your positions were on Reagan-era deficit spending, you'd be against it today. But I figured I wouldn't conjecture when I can ask you directly.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:30:42 PM PDT

•  miltary policy

  Born and raised in Virginia and very pleased that we have such a distinguished candidate to challenge that empty suit Allen.

  Sorry if this has been asked and answered but what sort of conservative are you with respect to national defense?  Could you indicate to us which of your writings are most pertinent to your views on the challenges presented by Islamic terrorism, on the one hand, and strong states (such as China) on the other?

  by nieman on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:31:28 PM PDT

  •  'Conservative' on national defense

    My comment that I am conservative on national defense should not in any way be interpreted as supporting the neo-conservative expansionist philosophy, which in my view has more in common with the way the Soviet Union operated than it does with the United States -- we have never exported our ideology at the point of a gun.  I view myself as more in line with people like Senators Sam Nunn and John Glenn, who believed that an adequate defense budget was essential to protecting our interests around the world.  

    The policies of this Administration literally squandered an historic opportunity after 9/11 to bring much of the world to our side.

    I have written extensively on this and you can find the articles on my personal web page, www.jameswebb.com

    by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:56:18 PM PDT

    •  thank you

      Thank you, Sec. Webb.

      My own view on the defense budget is that it includes many very expensive projects that have little or no strategic value and has for a long time.  I consider that view a conservative one.

      I also agree that our military must be strong and prepared to defend allies and otherwise protect American interests.

      You seem generally very much "reality-based," so I look forward to reading your articles at www.jameswebb.com.

      Thanks again, and good luck.

      by nieman on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:04:18 PM PDT

•  On education

  Do you believe education funding should occur on a local, statewide, or federal level?

  (I'm going to assume you think unfunded federal mandates like NCLB are ridiculous).

  by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:35:06 PM PDT

•  Sir,

  Question: What would be your top priority in the Senate?

  by VirginiaDem on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:35:30 PM PDT

•  What do you think America most needs to invest

  it's energies in as a nation? Education, war on poverty, or what's your pick?

  by jmaps on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:36:49 PM PDT

•  Renewable Energy (RE) and Energy Efficiency (EE)

  Mr. Webb, this is more of a comment than a question. Our current energy situation threatens our national security, our ability to act freely in our foreign policy, our economic well-being, and the environment by way of global warming and pollution.  

  I understand you are eager to learn about U.S. energy consumption and RE alternatives, and I think you can clearly differentiate yourself from George Allen by emphasizing our dire need to wean ourselves from foreign oil, and to encourage electrical generation from sources other than coal.  Moving toward RE would not only lessen the risks in those areas I mentioned, but also create jobs in rural areas (via biofuels, bioenergy, and wind farms).  

  Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency can help make America stronger, self-sufficient, and healthier.

  I look forward to volunteering for your campaign.  Thank you VERY much for running!

  by Reed Richards on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:38:21 PM PDT

•  Poverty

  How do you think poverty could be reduced? Why?

  by cwaltz on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:40:07 PM PDT

•  aoeu

  Hi, you coached my baseball team years ago.  Good luck on your run!

  by TealVeal on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:40:45 PM PDT

•  Uniting the Scots-Irish and African Americans

  Jim,

  In the Wall Street Journal you wrote an article where you said:

  In fact, the greatest realignment in modern politics would take place rather quickly if the right national leader found a way to bring the Scots-Irish and African Americans to the same table, and so to redefine a formula that has consciously set them apart for the past two centuries.

  I have read "Born Fighting" and I found this statement very compelling.  I am wondering if you have a plan or a vision as to how such a coming together could happen?

  Thank you.

  by colorless green ideas on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:40:57 PM PDT

•  Thanks for stopping by Mr. Webb

  I'm very exited about your campaign. I also really enjoyed your appearence on the Colbert Report.

  I notice that you claim to be a "conservative" on foreign policy. By that, do you mean that you favor an aggresive foreign policy or an "America should mind it's own business"foreign policy (or something in between)?

  May I ask, what was your position on President Clinton's actions in the Balkans?

  Also, are you generally in favor of or opposed to trade liberalization?

  by Idioteque on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:41:03 PM PDT

•  BRAC

  Do you agree with BRAC realignment of jobs to outside the beltway?

  I feel like this was done simply to move it from Moran's district to Davis', without any regard to the implications on the region and on transportation. I also think that Warner was the only one who questioned the reasoning behind this shift.

  by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:41:17 PM PDT

•  'Why Women Can't Fight'

  Mr. Webb, I admire much of what you have to say, and as I'm also a Scots-Irish writer I feel a certain kinship with you.  But I'm troubled by your apparent opinions regarding women in the military.

  I haven't been able to locate a copy of your 1979 magazine article entitled "Why Women Can't Fight" (if you have it, I'd like to read it - I note that it's not among the articles on your website).  Nor have I been able to find your exact remarks about the Tailhook scandal.  But the comments by Col. Paul Rousch (Marine, Ret.) in the US Naval Institute magazine, Proceedings, in 1997, are dismaying:

  When James Webb wrote "Women Can't Fight" for Washingtonian magazine in 1979, he initiated an assault that continues to the present day. The assault primarily is on women, but it extends much further. It is an assault on the Naval Academy and on the naval service.

  It is an assault on civilian control of the military and ultimately on the constitutional constraints that define the relation between citizen and soldier. His 1981 book, A Sense of Honor, continued to press certain elements of the assault. In particular, it decried congressional legislation regarding hazing. In an article entitled "The War on the Military Culture" in The Weekly Standard in January 1997, he returned again to some of the basic themes that have marked his writings over the years.

  [...]

  In "Women Can't Fight," Webb expresses the view that the presence of women poisons the preparation of men for combat command and that the process of training for combat leadership at the Naval Academy has been sterilized as a result.

  [...]

  When Webb writes about the 1991 Tailhook convention he advocates an approach that absolves leadership for its obvious abdication of responsibility and accountability. He frequently interprets the events as having been caused by a small number of drunken aviators and rejects the notion that Navy culture was implicated in any way. In an article in The Washington Post entitled "The Navy Adrift," an adaptation of his speech at the Naval Institute's 1996 Annapolis Seminar, he described Tailhook as an event that should have been in the news for three to five days. His comments then, as always, avoided the larger context of Tailhook.

  Tailhook is not about some number of drunken aviators; it is only peripherally about sexual assaults and other forms of sexual misconduct. Rather, it is about staggering professional deficiencies--in truth telling; in respect for persons; in military discipline; in subordination of the military to civilian control; in understanding that unit cohesion and hence combat effectiveness is incompatible with bigotry. Webb's attempts to trivialize Tailhook are without redeeming social or military value.

  When Webb advocates punishing the "few drunken aviators" but never advocates holding the leadership accountable, one wonders if he has the slightest clue about the obligations of command.

  [...]

  Mr. Webb's views are not likely to change. Based on the politics of resentment, they are the cause of significant harm to the naval service and to the military in general. They are destructive of unit cohesion. Somewhere along the line it will be important to get into the hands of students, perhaps in a core course, written material that discusses the implications for institutional culture that are embedded in Webb's writing. One thing is certain. Silence will not do. The issue is too important. There must be no more free rides for those who would undermine what this great institution is about.

  What is your reaction to these criticisms today?

  How have your attitudes toward women in the military changed in the intervening years, if at all?

  You were asked about this issue in a web interview in October, but your answer was notably unclear and evasive.

  As a Democrat, a feminist, and a staunch supporter of women in the military, I'm deeply concerned about your position on this matter.

  by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:51:46 PM PDT

  •  this is a very important question

    Thanks for posing it so effectively.  I'm watching for the answer.

    by enough on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:56:23 PM PDT

    •  Unfortunately

      The hour appears to be ending.....still, thanks so much to Sec. Webb for giving such refreshingly frank answers.

      by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:59:54 PM PDT

      •  both my questions were within the hour

        If he would like my money, he should find time to answer them.

        by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:08:08 PM PDT

        •  Well, yeah

          But to be fair they weren't posted until ten minutes till the end of said hour. I'm not saying they shouldn't be answered. I'm certainly not about to commit until he answers them, but in general I think the fact that he participated like this at all is pretty unique and deserves encouragement.

          by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:10:00 PM PDT

          •  Will there be another Q&A

            I couldn't get off work until after 4 so I wasn't able to answer my question in time to get it answered.

            by colorless green ideas on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:16:36 PM PDT

          •  actually, it's his obligation

            This should be seen as a job interview.  We're looking to hire HIM.  He needs to convince US.

            No disrespect intended to Mr. Webb.  I'm speaking of all politicians and people running for office.

            by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:23:31 PM PDT

            •  Well, not really.

              He's looking for the voters of Virginia to hire him. A lot of us (like me) are not from Virginia.

              by Elwood Dowd on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:51:49 PM PDT

              •  hrh is, though. n/t

                by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 06:19:36 PM PDT

                •  I'm not, but I have money

                  and principles :-)

                  by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 07:18:06 PM PDT

  •  I have read Webb on this subject

    so if he doesn't have a chance to respond to this question, I can dig up the interviews and articles I have read.

    by colorless green ideas on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:59:55 PM PDT

  •  Female veteran

    Oddly enough, I feel more strongly about supporting Mr Webb because I remember the climate for females in the military during the 80's. There was alot of resentment from male sailors toward their female counterparts because we had two sets of standards. Unless it has changed, we still do. Female soldiers and sailors won't truly be seen as equal until we have one set of standards for those that serve. I find it more than a little puzzling and frustrating that the women who died in Iraq were considered "non combatant". Were they really or just in theory? To me, the military should not be about political correctness but about doing what makes the most sense so that the military is able to fulfill it's function. Quite frankly, we may have hurt our cause by moving too quickly.

    by cwaltz on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:06:49 PM PDT

    •  good points, but

      what does Webb think about women in combat positions?  The title "Why Women Can't Fight" is disturbing, to say the least.  I can't speak to the actual content of the article because I haven't read it, but Rousch's response makes it look pretty bad.

      by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:12:22 PM PDT

      •  Webb opened more billets to women

        than any Navy Secretary in history.  Not bad, if you ask me.

        By the way, speaking of Webb and women, word just came in that Leslie Byrne endorsed Webb. Here's the beginning of the press release:

        Former Northern Virginia Congresswoman and Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor Leslie Byrne today announced her support and full endorsement of Jim Webb for U.S. Senate.

        â€oeToday I announce my full support for Jim Webb and his candidacy for U.S. Senate,â€� said Byrne. â€oeI believe Jim is the best kind of democrat who will stand up for all Virginians as well as fight for what is right in Washington. Jim is the kind of candidate we need to win in November.â€� â€oeJim will do us proud, not only in this campaign but as our Senator.â€�

        This is huge.

        by lowkell on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 06:28:05 PM PDT

        •  let him answer the questions himself

          I want to hear how he explains the "Why Women Can't Fight" thing.

          by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 07:19:10 PM PDT

          •  The Ax You Choose to Grind

            is an interesting choice.  Have you served in the military?

            by worried dem on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 06:52:17 AM PDT

            •  This isn't 'axgrinding' - it's a serious issue

              You should be concerned about it too.

              I haven't served in the military, but I'm a student of military history and warfare.  I have a good friend who was a Marine.  She was totally gung-ho about it (all her brothers were Marines and the eldest had been killed in Vietnam).  She was in the service for several years and became an officer.  Eventually she resigned, heartbroken and disgusted, because the women under her command -- "her troops" -- were being sexually harassed and abused, and there was nothing she could do about it.  The higher-ups didn't care.  She had run her head into the brick wall for a long time and finally it got to be too much.

              This is a woman who was a right-wing Republican and the furthest thing from a "radical feminist".  

              I don't want to live in a country where brave, loyal soldiers (and sailors) are demeaned just because they're women.  Do you want to live in that country?

              by hrh on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:14:40 AM PDT

  •  He answered your question

    in this interview.  Here's an excerpt:

    In 1979 you famously wrote a piece questioning the Army's embrace of females in combat situations. Later you criticized what you saw as hysteria in the aftermath of the Navy's Tailhook scandal. Do you have any second thoughts on those issues?
    
    My view then, and the decibel level was loud on all sides back in 1979 with the Carter administration. The Carter administration had just ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to support a political policy that did not exist. They had ordered them to support removing the ban on women in combat. That's when I wrote that piece. And the commandant of the Marine Corps at that time, Robert Barrow, who is one of my all-time Marine heroes, stood up to them. He called me after he had done it. He basically said that the deputy secretary of defense had given them that order and they had all smartly saluted except for Barrow. He said I do not believe that is a legal order, I'm going to have my counsel check on it. If it is a legal order, I'm going to explain to the Congress the circumstances under which I'm obeying it. And they backed off. But that's how high the decibel level was and how much the political intrusion in the military was going on at the time.

    But what was your position?
    When I was secretary of the Navy, I opened up more billets to women than any secretary of the Navy in history. But we did it the right way. I got my warfare chiefs, the three warfare chiefs, to go down and examine inside their own specialties where women should be absorbed. I had them then report to the chief of naval operations. And then the chief of naval operations reported to me. I had the uniform side make the decisions, the recommendations, and then bring them to me. This wasn't me standing up there pontificating because I was a civilian official. So when this has been done in a rational way where it works, I fully support it. When it's an intrusion from the outside, I think that not only I but other people should have questions. So where it is now? I think that from what I can see from a distance it's working well.

    by colorless green ideas on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:08:02 PM PDT

    •  those are not answers

      Those are evasions.

      by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:09:23 PM PDT

      •  sorry

        i gave you what i had read.

        by colorless green ideas on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:12:43 PM PDT

        •  thank you

          I had read it already and it made me even more worried.

          by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:17:07 PM PDT

          •  I asked

            a very similar question in person recently at an event where I had the opportunity to meet him.  The answer was not encouraging.  Among other things he talked about the performance of Naval Academy graduates as a whole being lower after women were admitted.  When someone else asked him if he really meant that the performance went down because of the women he evaded the question.

            by furryjester on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 06:34:58 PM PDT

            •  that's not good

              I'd like him to come out and state his position clearly.

              This is the wrong point in our history to be equivocal about supporting women in the military.

              by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 07:24:10 PM PDT

              •  Unfortunately

                I think his position is fairly clear.

                by furryjester on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 05:33:09 AM PDT

•  You are a true patriot, sir...

  as the grandson of a general, I've been raised to have a strong respect for our troops.  I know about your respect for the military ethos of your Scots-Irish ancestry.  Given the aggressively anti-veteran policies undertaken by the Administration, what pro-veteran/troop policies will you undertake in office?

  I had more to say, but you're on TV.  

  by teenagedallasdeaniac on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:52:28 PM PDT

•  Mr. Webb

  Your answer to the second amendment made my husband very happy (which means I can drag him out to help support you). I appreciate your taking the time to come by and answer our questions and hope we didn't overwhelm you.

  by cwaltz on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:53:56 PM PDT

•  A woman's right to choose

  I haven't seen this topic addressed yet, so let me ask you: it's been said by a few of your supporters that you're "pro-choice".  Is that accurate?  How would you describe your position regarding preserving women's legal access to abortion?

  by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:59:08 PM PDT

  •  James Webb has said

    James Webb has said that he supports Roe v. Wade.

    by smari006 on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:12:04 PM PDT

    •  great, if true n/t

      by hrh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 07:20:57 PM PDT

      •  However

        he also says that he is against late term abortions.  As we all know, these are performed because the fetus is dead or will die shortly after birth, or because the life or health of the woman is in danger.

        by furryjester on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 05:35:57 AM PDT

        •  hmm - again, not good

          I'd like to see a detailed explanation of his views on this.

          It looks more and more like he should be a Republican.

          by hrh on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:16:39 AM PDT

          •  I think

            he is trying to be all red state friendly and stuff.  He did talk a lot about economic and social fairness, keeping the government out of bedrooms, fixing the increasing gap between rich and poor, and protecting the middle class which is now being destroyed.  He even came out against NAFTA which really surprised me.

            I'm still trying to work out his views on military/foreign relations.

            by furryjester on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:18:51 AM PDT

          •  Garbage

            Webb has said plainly he supports a woman's right to choose.

            Give it up hrh: he's a Democrat and he's likely to be the candidate.

            by JCWilmore on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:55:24 AM PDT

            •  I was 'Born Fighting' too

              So good luck telling me to "give it up" :-)

              He can be the candidate, that's fine - and I'll still be here talking about these issues that need to be talked about.

              by hrh on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 11:14:45 AM PDT

•  realignment and race

  Good evening, Mr. Webb.  Thanks for taking the time to visit with us.  In your (in)famous WSJ article you wrote

  In fact, the greatest realignment in modern politics would take place rather quickly if the right national leader found a way to bring the Scots-Irish and African-Americans to the same table, and so to redefine a formula that has consciously set them apart for the past two centuries.

  I do not exaggerate when I say that is the single most interesting political statement I have read in my lifetime.  I would like very much to know what you have in mind.  How might such a realignment come about?    What set of issues might bring those two groups to the same table?  How do we overcome two centuries of bitter history that have driven them apart?  

  I have thought all my life that working class blacks and whites have much more in common with each other than either has with the elites who inhabit the power structure in our country.

  by ignorant bystander on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:00:11 PM PDT

•  Jim Webb good-bye

  Thanks for the questions.

  by Jim Webb on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:01:41 PM PDT

  •  I'd like to say thanks for the answers, but....

    by tiponeill on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:04:08 PM PDT

    •  He already stated a position on gay rights

      Saying essentially that we all are entitled to equal contractual rights, but he sees no point in forcing churches to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to. Now, you may see the wiggle room there, I certainly do, but that's a pretty direct answer, and if that doesn't satisfy you I am officially giving up.

      by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:07:16 PM PDT

      •  tiponeill doesn't accept that answer

        he says it is 'dodging the question'

        i think it is a great answer myself

        by colorless green ideas on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:11:19 PM PDT

        •  I should explain

          My frustration with tiponeill goes back through Kaine and Warner, and I just feel like he tracks Virginia politicians purely to give them a hard time about gay rights, and tell them even when they're being supportive that they are not being supportive enough.

          by VirginiaBelle on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:12:56 PM PDT

          •  No - my questions are the same for all politician

            (including Casey, Kerry etc), it is simply that Virginia has been making a reputation for itself as the most homophobic state in the country recently, and some people seem to think that Virginia Dems should be given a free pass, since the state is so full of bigots.